During his initial 100 days in office, President Trump aggressively sought to amplify executive authority. While many attribute this to his adoption and expansion of the conservative-era unitary executive theory, his approach actually surpasses this framework and other conventional ideas.
Instead of adhering to mainstream legal theories, members of Trump’s administration have embraced a deeper right-wing intellectual tradition rooted in monarchical and even authoritarian governance models, adapted from European political thought to the American context.
This ideological current, more prominent now than at any point since the 1930s, underpins the administration’s justification for consolidating power in the presidency.
The early months of the Trump presidency have effectively served as a test case for these radical doctrines, revealing why such ideas have historically been avoided in American governance and underscoring the risks they pose to democratic institutions.
This intellectual lineage traces back to legal theorist Carl Schmitt and extends through political philosopher Leo Strauss, thinkers associated with the Claremont Institute—a California-based conservative think tank closely linked to the Trump movement—and contemporary legal scholar Adrian Vermeule. Many conservatives have resisted the constraints placed on presidential power by two significant waves of administrative reform: the early 20th-century rise of the bureaucratic regulatory state during the Progressive and New Deal eras, and the 1970s congressional pushback following abuses of power during the Nixon administration.
Over time, the presidency evolved into a role characterized by broad, often indirect oversight of extensive federal departments and agencies staffed by career civil servants who persist beyond individual administrations.
